Motion Picture News (Nov-Dec 1925)

Motion rictui Vol. XXXII ALBANY, N. Y., AND NEW YORK CITY, NOVEMBER 7, 1925 No. 19 Compulsion Not the Answer NL. NAT HANSON, head of a lattfe m circuit of theatres in Canada, gave an interview to a Toronto newspaper upon his return, recently, from Europe. His remarks strike us as eminently sensible. He says that the best American pictures are the best in the world; that our poor pictures are no worse — and better in technique— than Europe's poor pictures (he might have added that they also have the very large box-office advantage of well known players). He would like to book English pictures ; obviously that is so, since Canadian sentiment greatly favors a British trade-mark. He would like them to balance his bookings of American pictures: but the prospects of getting British pictures are not rosy. He says that the British producing forces need organization. A subsidy is needed. The Kinematograph Weekly of London cites the above interview in an editorial entitled "Subsidies and Soft Soap." The editorial ends as follows: "In one way or another the American producer has certainly shown that he will voluntarily do nothing for the British film. There are various remedies and even a subsidy may be of temporary assistance. "But the real remedy is compulsion, and it is not surprising that in France as well as in England the Kontingent looms even larger in trade discussion. The blatant insincerity of American protestations may, in fact, force the very remedy they have most reason to fear. "And they do fear — badly — being compelled to do what they would have us believe they would love to do." As to this matter of compulsion — compell ing the American distributor to take British films: Would it not be wise, in this respect, indeed in the whole discussion of British films in America and American films in Great Britain, to consider those who ultimately pay for them — namely, the public; and also to consider those who buy the films for public consumption, namely the exhibitors? In all the articles in the British trade press on the subject we find reference mostly to producers and distributors. But the producers and distributors, here and in Great Britain, do not, of course, control their respective amusement publics. Nor, of course, do the makers and jobbers of any goods control the public taste for them. The British public is not "compelled" to pay to see American films; nor do we know of any way to "compel" the American public to pay to see British films. Here in fact seems to be, and simply enough, the crux of the entire matter. If our distributors are'"compelled" to take British films, just how will they "compel" the American public to pay to see them? There seems good opportunity here for discussion. We invite the British trade press to take it up, and suggest the business ways and means. * * * To make this discussion concrete, we suggest getting right down to the essentials: in every point throughout the length and breadth of the United States today where two theatres are in competition let us say that one is showing an American bill and the other has a program of British pictures. The American bill in all probability is founded upon well advertised stage plays, books, magazine stories, cartoons, topical events or taste, etc.; the British bill is not so founded (and here we speak from a fairly good knowledge of British {Continued on page 2T24)